Lay off insulting other editors. I haven't re-written the engines part yet. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your addition to
Hwasong-14 has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. Please don't cut and paste material from websites (in this case,
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/north-koreas-icbm-a-new-missile-and-a-new-era/) - particularly when the website uses
non-neutral terms when discussing the topic.
Bencherlite
Talk
14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Hwasong-14. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Hornetzilla78 (
talk)
14:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. The source you added does not say that the missile has a range of 9,700 km, it says that it might one day get it, when fully developed... - Tom |
Thomas.W
talk
17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Amortias (
T)(
C)
21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
sources I used are valid and don't break rules "path of prospero" ( talk) 22:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a valid unblock request. This is just a continuation of your reason for your block instead. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You were blocked for repeatedly adding material that is not supported by the source you added, i.e. the source does not say what you claim it says (see what I wrote in the final warning you got, and also see Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Range of the Hwasong-14). If you can't understand simple English in messages posted here, and can't understand what the sources say, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
10:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. .
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your addition was challenged as WP:UNDUE and you were asked to take the issue to the talkpage. See WP:BRD Don't keep restoring it. You were recently blocked for edits to this and related articles so I suggest that you be particularly careful. Meters ( talk) 22:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Slow-edit-warring to try to insert material contested by other editors is not appropriate. Use article talkpages to gain consensus - it appears to me that you've almost never used an article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) False, I haven't entered content that was contested. Please repeat and lie. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:20, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
No, it isn't and now you lied. Content isn't the issue. Please lie, again. You will as you will again spin with fallacious comparison of edit you reverted with two previous one as you ignore different content and sources. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:40, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
I did insert quotes of him, I didn't claim/say I didn't as you again take out of context as you focus on quotes of him rather than sources and content of edit you reversed and then fallaciously compared to two previous ones. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:50, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? I haven't used North Korean sources. Chernobog95 (talk) 5:06, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
I didn't deny I inserted Cumings quotes three times, you are implying that I did and that is your narrative. False, they challenged source not the quote as assert former has to do with later. You want to believe its opinion and you removed my third which has two "opinions" which you treat facts as opinions also it is evident that you're uninformed/biased by claiming SK news outlet is from NK. No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? Chernobog95 (talk) 5:22, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Energy in North Korea. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Mentioning the Daily Kos makes me a CONSERVATIVE? On what fucking planet are you living?
If you're going to claim to detect some sort of shibboleth, maybe that shibboleth should have some basis in the real world -- like, say, the conservative habit of referring to the "Democrat Party" -- rather than an obviously made-up excuse to dodge having to provide some evidence for your claim? And since YOU'RE the one making the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with something halfway solid: this is Wikipedia 101. -- Calton | Talk 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a message you recently left on an editing description directed to
Python Dan was unduly harsh. Please remember
not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a
common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you.
Kirliator (
talk)
21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Hwasong-15, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop
making disruptive edits, as you did at
Hwasong-15.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 161.6.248.164 ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Hwasong-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator ( talk) 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
19:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Chernobog95. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. This follows a previous one week block for similar reasons, and an attempt I made earlier on your talk page to reason with you. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Media coverage of North Korea. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Media coverage of North Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator ( talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Block extended by six months for engaging in socking. -- NeilN talk to me 23:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Different person in different country with different initial IP numbers, admit it... You didnt bother to check for details. "path of prospero" ( talk) 23:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Duplicate request. See below. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've blanked a person attack by what appears to be an IP evading the block on this user. Meters ( talk) 23:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
So you Meters ( talk) wont apologize for your mistake or will you notify NeIN of his mistake? I assume no, prove me wrong if you can.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your block edit bans are invalid, Meters jumped to conclusion by not checking origin of the IP which you took for granted and too didn't bother to check the IP. Is 79 the same as 188? No. No. No. What is my IP? Starts 188 then something and its not even my own as I dont pay for it, wifi from neighbour and good for banning him too. "path of prospero" ( talk) 23:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked on 12/24/2017 for two months. You evaded this block for a week as 188.129.26.144 and NeilN extended the block for six months. You again evaded this block with that IP on 4/24/2018. The block appears to be appropriate. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lay off insulting other editors. I haven't re-written the engines part yet. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Your addition to
Hwasong-14 has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. Please don't cut and paste material from websites (in this case,
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/north-koreas-icbm-a-new-missile-and-a-new-era/) - particularly when the website uses
non-neutral terms when discussing the topic.
Bencherlite
Talk
14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Hwasong-14. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Hornetzilla78 (
talk)
14:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. The source you added does not say that the missile has a range of 9,700 km, it says that it might one day get it, when fully developed... - Tom |
Thomas.W
talk
17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Amortias (
T)(
C)
21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
sources I used are valid and don't break rules "path of prospero" ( talk) 22:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a valid unblock request. This is just a continuation of your reason for your block instead. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You were blocked for repeatedly adding material that is not supported by the source you added, i.e. the source does not say what you claim it says (see what I wrote in the final warning you got, and also see Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Range of the Hwasong-14). If you can't understand simple English in messages posted here, and can't understand what the sources say, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
10:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. .
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your addition was challenged as WP:UNDUE and you were asked to take the issue to the talkpage. See WP:BRD Don't keep restoring it. You were recently blocked for edits to this and related articles so I suggest that you be particularly careful. Meters ( talk) 22:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Slow-edit-warring to try to insert material contested by other editors is not appropriate. Use article talkpages to gain consensus - it appears to me that you've almost never used an article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) False, I haven't entered content that was contested. Please repeat and lie. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:20, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
No, it isn't and now you lied. Content isn't the issue. Please lie, again. You will as you will again spin with fallacious comparison of edit you reverted with two previous one as you ignore different content and sources. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:40, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
I did insert quotes of him, I didn't claim/say I didn't as you again take out of context as you focus on quotes of him rather than sources and content of edit you reversed and then fallaciously compared to two previous ones. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:50, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? I haven't used North Korean sources. Chernobog95 (talk) 5:06, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
I didn't deny I inserted Cumings quotes three times, you are implying that I did and that is your narrative. False, they challenged source not the quote as assert former has to do with later. You want to believe its opinion and you removed my third which has two "opinions" which you treat facts as opinions also it is evident that you're uninformed/biased by claiming SK news outlet is from NK. No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? Chernobog95 (talk) 5:22, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Energy in North Korea. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Mentioning the Daily Kos makes me a CONSERVATIVE? On what fucking planet are you living?
If you're going to claim to detect some sort of shibboleth, maybe that shibboleth should have some basis in the real world -- like, say, the conservative habit of referring to the "Democrat Party" -- rather than an obviously made-up excuse to dodge having to provide some evidence for your claim? And since YOU'RE the one making the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with something halfway solid: this is Wikipedia 101. -- Calton | Talk 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a message you recently left on an editing description directed to
Python Dan was unduly harsh. Please remember
not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a
common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you.
Kirliator (
talk)
21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Hwasong-15, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop
making disruptive edits, as you did at
Hwasong-15.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 161.6.248.164 ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Hwasong-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator ( talk) 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
SamaranEmerald (
talk)
19:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Chernobog95. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. This follows a previous one week block for similar reasons, and an attempt I made earlier on your talk page to reason with you. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Media coverage of North Korea. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Media coverage of North Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator ( talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you.
Acroterion
(talk)
02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Block extended by six months for engaging in socking. -- NeilN talk to me 23:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Different person in different country with different initial IP numbers, admit it... You didnt bother to check for details. "path of prospero" ( talk) 23:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Duplicate request. See below. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've blanked a person attack by what appears to be an IP evading the block on this user. Meters ( talk) 23:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
So you Meters ( talk) wont apologize for your mistake or will you notify NeIN of his mistake? I assume no, prove me wrong if you can.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me
05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Chernobog95 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your block edit bans are invalid, Meters jumped to conclusion by not checking origin of the IP which you took for granted and too didn't bother to check the IP. Is 79 the same as 188? No. No. No. What is my IP? Starts 188 then something and its not even my own as I dont pay for it, wifi from neighbour and good for banning him too. "path of prospero" ( talk) 23:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked on 12/24/2017 for two months. You evaded this block for a week as 188.129.26.144 and NeilN extended the block for six months. You again evaded this block with that IP on 4/24/2018. The block appears to be appropriate. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.